`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES, AND
`RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`Inv. N0. 337-TA-750
`(Remand)
`
`NOTICE OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION NOT TO REVIEW AN INITIAL
`DETERMINATION GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE THE REMAND
`INVESTIGATION BASED ON A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT;
`TERMINATION OF REMAND INVESTIGATION
`
`AGENCY:
`
`U.S. International Trade Commission.
`
`ACTION:
`
`Notice.
`
`SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has
`determined not to review the initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding Administrative Law
`Judge, granting the joint motion of complainant Apple Inc., f/k/a Apple Computer, lnc., of
`Cupertino, California (“Apple”) and respondent Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) of
`Libertyville, Illinois to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.
`
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General
`Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,
`telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
`investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
`5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Intemational Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
`S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General infonnation conceming the
`Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet sewer at httg://www.usitc.gov. The
`public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS)
`at httQ.'//edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can
`be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD tenninal on (202) 205-1810.
`
`SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
`November 30, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Apple. 75 Fed. Reg. 74081-82 (Nov. 30,
`2010). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
`U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation,
`and the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile devices and related
`software by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,812,828 (“the ‘828
`Patent”); 7,663,607 (“the ‘607 Patent”); and 5,379,430.
`
`The Commission’s notice of investigation named Motorola, Inc. n/k/a Motorola Solutions of
`Schaumburg, Illinois (“Motorola Solutions”) and Motorola as respondents. The Office of Unfair
`
`1
`
`
`
`Import Investigation was named as a participating party. The Commission subsequently
`terminated Motorola Solutions as a respondent based on withdrawal of allegations pursuant to
`Commission Rule 2l0.21(a)(l)
`(19 C.F.R. § 210.2l(a)(1)). Notice (Aug. 31, 2011).
`
`On January 13, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no violation of section 337. On
`March 16, 2012, the Commission issued a notice, determining to review the ID in part, and on
`review, to affinn the ALJ’s determination of no violation and to terminate the investigation. 77
`Fed. Reg. 16860-62 (Mar. 22, 2012). On April 13, 2012, Apple timely appealed the
`Commission’s final determination of no violation of section 337 as to the ’607 and ’828 patents to
`the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On August 7, 2013, the Federal
`Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and vacated-in-part the Commission’s decision and
`remanded for f11l'lIl'1€1‘proceedings. Apple, Inc. v. Int’! Trude Comm
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.
`2013). On September 6, 2013, intervenor Motorola filed a combined petition for panel rehearing
`and rehearing en banc concerning the panel’s holding that the Commission failed to consider
`secondary considerations in finding claim 10 of the ’607 patent invalid for obviousness. On
`November 8, 2013, the Court denied the petition. The mandate issued on November 15, 2013,
`returning jurisdiction to the Commission.
`
`On May 6, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice and Order remanding the investigation
`for an ALJ to make certain findings concerning infringement, validity, and domestic industry with
`respect to the ’607 and ’828 patents. 79 Fed. Reg. 26993-95 (May 12, 2014).
`
`On May 22, 2014, Apple and Motorola filed a joint motion to terminate the remand
`investigation based on a settlement agreement reached between Apple and MotoroIa’s parent
`company, Google Inc. On May 27, 2014, the Commission investigative attomey filed a response
`not opposing the termination.
`
`On May 28, 2014, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the joint motion for termination
`pursuant to section 210.2l(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. No petitions
`for review were filed.
`
`The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
`
`The authority for the Commission's detennination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff
`Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), and in Part 210 ofthe Commission’s Rules of
`Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. Part 210).
`
`By order of the Commission.
`
`Issued: June 16, 2014
`
`7@@
`
`Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`
`2
`
`
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`Inv. N0. 337-TA-750
`(Remand)
`
`PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand
`upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Lisa M. Kattan, Esq., and the following parties as
`indicatedon June 16, 2014.
`,
`.
`.
`.
`. ,
`,
`
`Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`On Behalf of Complainant Agple Inc.:
`
`Brian E. Ferguson, Esq.
`WEIL, GOTSHALL & MANGES LLP
`1300 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`On Behalf of Respondent Motorola Mobility; Inc.:
`
`Charles F. Schill, Esq.
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Other)'
`
`) Via Hand Delivery
`) Via Overnight Delivery
`) Via First Class Mail
`
`) Via Hand Delivery
`) Via Overnight Delivery
`) Via First Class Mail
`) Other: